The team was left outraged by the 10-second time penalty Hamilton received for the clash which wiped out Verstappen and responded by lodging an appeal for the FIA to review the incident in an attempt to increase Hamilton’s punishment retrospectively.

But the stewards dismissed Red Bull’s case on the grounds that there was no "significant and relevant new element" to re-open an investigation into the crash during a hearing which took place on Thursday afternoon in Budapest ahead of this weekend’s Hungarian Grand Prix.

The evidence presented by Red Bull included slides of a reenactment of Hamilton's lap 1 line based on a lap driven by the team's reserve driver Alex Albon. There was also a comparison of Hamilton's overtake on Charles Leclerc at the same corner later in the race. 

“That what was presented to the Stewards was not "a significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned," the stewards said in a statement. 

“The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created for the purposes of submissions to support the Petition for Review. And they were created based on evidence that was available to the Competitor at the time of the decision (namely the GPS data). That clearly does not satisfy the requirements of Article 14.”

The stewards had deemed Hamilton to be “predominantly” but not “wholly” to blame for the Copse collision and subsequently issued the seven-time world champion with a 10-second penalty.

Despite the penalty, Hamilton fought back to claim a crucial eighth British GP victory as he whittled Verstappen’s championship advantage down to just eight points.

Red Bull was angered with what it believed to be a lenient penalty considering Verstappen’s points loss and the £1.3million damage incurred by the 51G impact with the barriers.

However, the FIA made it clear after the Silverstone race that the consequences of incidents are not taken into consideration when determining a penalty, something it argued was consistent with previous decisions.